RayC

There are problems in making an organisation representing 27 member states comprising 450 million people more accountable to the electorate. There will never be a perfect system. Imo the transfer of some of the responsibilities of the Commission e.g. the ability to propose legislation would be a start. I would prefer that the Commissioners or, at least, the PEC were directly elected. The problem then is a lack of knowledge of the individuals concerned. For example, very few people outside of Germany had any idea who v.d Leyden was. That said, the majority of the UK electorate couldn't tell you who their local MP was but they still vote.

'Reform of the Lords' next on the agenda? I don't suppose you have any evidence to support that claim? The only other European countries outside the ECHR are Belarus and Russia. Sometimes you can tell a lot about someone by the company that they keep.

It takes 5+ years to become a UK national. So before that happens, would you withhold access to the NHS for a migrant and his/her family? Deny the kids access to education? Etc. Fortunately, that is not how it works in the UK and I don't believe that even the most right-wing member of the Flat Earth Brigade is proposing it. Youravingalaff has already corrected you regarding the Thai system - which I would have thought you might have known given that you work here - so I'll just concentrate on correcting you re Australia. You don't say when, or what type of migrant worker, you were in Australia, but if you are migrant worker in Australia today, you enjoy the same rights as a native-born worker. The exception is if you are on one of the short-stay working visas, which are usually granted for stays of up to 3 months (and no more than 12 months). Here, the individual has to arrange his/her own medical insurance. Not the most outrageous example of discrimination imo. (It is extremely unlikely that individuals under these types of visa would want to bring their families with them so, again, not really a problem worth worrying about). If the world worked as you suggest then nothing would ever get started. I find your 'philosophy of life' outlined above sad. Of course, that is just my opinion. I have not lived in Thailand since the '90s. We live in the UK - at least for the time being - and spend European winters in Thailand. No country is perfect. I have no intention of going to live on a deserted island, so some compromise on some things is necessary. You are very open about your prejudice and discrimination towards migrants. I am curious why this is? Is it due to racism and/or xenophobia? A superiority complex (based on nationality?)? Something else?

Try removing the 783 sitting members of the House of Lords! You are obviously ignorant of the way in which the president of the European Commission (PEC) is elected, therefore I'll lay out the process so that you can refer to it in the future: The PEC serves a 5-year term. S/he is nominated by the European Council, which is the group comprising of the Heads of government of the member states (all of whom have been elected democratically). This nominee is then either endorsed or rejected by the European Parliament, whose members are directly elected by the public in the member states. It is untrue that the PEC cannot be removed as you infer. The European Parliament has this power and would have used it in 1999 if Jacques Santner had not pre-empted them and resigned. The UK had democracy when we were a member of the EU. Imo it's no coincidence that since Brexit the Tory party has, on a number of occasions, attempted to circumvent our democratic institutions. Fortunately, these attempts have been unsuccessful up to now.

You know that Brexit is a 'red rag to a bull' for me, so I'll get that out of the way quickly: Just how have things improved wrt controlling immigration since we left the EU? The UK jobs market seemed to work pretty efficiently when the free movement of EU nationals into the UK was permitted. Your original post to which I replied: " ... it seems some people feel that non British nationals are entitled to the same treatment as British nationals while in Britain." So you are in favour of treating migrant workers in the UK as effectively 2nd class residents? You would withhold NHS care, other benefits and future pension entitlements from them despite the fact that they will be paying tax and NI contributions in exactly the same way as a UK national? (I was so astonished that anyone could seriously suggest this that I had to check that migrants were not st a separate tax regime!). I imagine that you would also not permit a migrant's kids to attend school? I doubt that any G20 country discriminates against it's residents in this way; certainly no EU country does and none are bankrupt. The only thing that is bankrupt is the morality of your ideas.

Touché. My apologies. I deserved that. It was a simple, childish comment. ..... however given that you know nothing of my educational achievements, that is no more than a guess. Personally, I wouldn't be confident that a guess was correct but each to their own.

Presumably there weren't as many job vacancies then and hence less need to import labour. What does this figure of 350,000 relate to? I don't understand what point you are trying to make. The UK public cast their votes in a general election every 4 or 5 years to elect a government. The government then (broadly) determines how many migrants should be allowed into the country. Yes. Immigration usually figures fairly prominently in the various party manifestos. The attached link gives an overview of the main parties' views on immigration in the 2019 election. https://freemovement.org.uk/general-election-manifestos-2019/

Jonny, Why do you feel the need to demonstrate that you failed GCSE Logic?😉

You're correct. I'm one of them. Anything else is discrimination pure and simple. I've yet to read a convincing argument to justify any such discrimination. In general - there are exceptions - an individual needs to have been living in the UK legally for 5 years before being eligible to apply for permanent residency. Imo this length of time is about right. Someone entering the country legally has either brought something to the table or is the partner/ child of someone who has. Assuming that the individual has not committed a serious crime, and that they still meet the same conditions, which led to their visa being granted in the first place, I don't see why their application for permanent residency should be refused. Only fair and just don't you think? I agree. However, a problem arises for supporters of this change in the law. Economic migrants fill jobs that, for whatever reason, cannot be filled by the local population. Can we agree on that? One estimate suggests that this bill will reduce immigration by 300,000 per annum. I believe that that there are +/-50,000 spousal views issued each year. Let's assume that the proposed new legislation reduces that number to zero. Doesn't this mean that there will 250,000 unfilled job vacancies? This cannot be 'good' from an economic standpoint and must therefore mean that the reduction in immigration numbers is intrinsically 'good' in itself. And why is a drop in immigration numbers good in itself? I can't think of any other logical answer other than it is because the immigrant is perceived as being 'different' (inferior?). I'd call that racism (or xenophobia).

I doubt that anyone in their right mind is under the illusion that the UK is a charity. The UK already has a points-based immigration system. I don't know how closely it aligns with the Australian system. I imagine that the vast majority of Australians are thoroughly decent individuals. However, just like the UK, there are almost certainly also a number of evil, bigoted racists as well.

"Tens of thousands"!!! Was there anybody apart from illegal Indians and Philipinos working in the Australian fast-food sector at the time? On the positive side, at least, the Australian government were able to put the correct visa stamp in tens of thousands of Indian and Filipino passports.

Your misplaced arrogance and delusion that you are some sort of oracle dispatching wisdom from on high is laughable. Your inability to accept basic logical reasoning illustrates that. Initially you made the factually incorrect claim that France and Germany were in favour of NATO expansion and cited this as evidence to support your theory. You now cite the fact that France and Germany were against NATO expansion as evidence in favour of your theory. I'll be generous and call this muddled thinking. That is unsurprisingly given that you have been unable to address any of my other points up to now. No Yes. Imo it goes further than that i.e the rise of India, the increased political power of the EU as a bloc, the formation of other regional blocks. See previous paragraph. Imo the US remains the dominant force. China's economic woes are a setback to its' ambitions. Russia's influence was waning which imo is one - perhaps, "the" - reason why it invaded Ukraine. I dispute the idea that three is the magic number. No. As you can see from the above, unlike you I address questions directly. For once, you are correct. I do dispute your contention that the US induced Russia to attack Ukraine. It didn't. No. Generally speaking, I think that in common with other nations, the US acts according to what it perceives as its' own best interests. So, now that we have established all that, how does destabilizing central Europe help protect (increase?) US hegemony? In a previous post, I posed the following question to you which, unsurprisingly, remains unanswered: "What has been achieved from a US perspective (by this war)? True, NATO appears to have acquired more resolve .... and added a couple of new members (Finland and Sweden), but that can hardly be called success. Indeed, Russia is still standing and if it is victorious in this war will, arguably, be stronger politically with the US shown to be weaker. Surely, if your theory is correct, the US will want to avoid this outcome at all costs and would continue funding Ukraine?" Almost certainly the wiser thing that you have said. It's just a shame that you couldn't have adopted this position at the outset. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! You're almost certainly correct. I feel that that we might part on a positive note. You too, honey.

Let's return to basics. In your rush to curb immigration, you miss the main reason for it: Immigrants are needed to provide labour which the UK is unable to source locally. One estimate suggests that this proposed legislation will cut applications by 300,000. Great for the numbers but it does beg the question, who will do the work? How about answering this one then? Why would an increase in illegal migration have anything to do with legal migration?

In the words of the UK's recently appointed foreign secretary and former PM, David Cameron: "Calm down, dear!". Let's get some facts straight. Firstly, the only evidence that you previously posted was Burns' quote. You have not mentioned any of the other sources up to now. More importantly, let's for the sake of argument assume that Russia invaded Ukraine in order to prevent further NATO expansion. Even if true, this is in no way sufficient to prove your original contention about the war being due to a US-led unipolar hegemony. As I pointed out in my original reply to you, the US remains influential in Europe and is the driving force in NATO but the EU is highly influential in the region as well, and often holds an opposing view to the US. An example of this is Ukraine's application to join NATO. Contrary to your claim that France and Germany were in favour of the application, the opposite is true https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato I will go even further in playing devil's advocate, let's assume that your premise about this war all being about a US-led unipolar hegemony is correct. Why would the US decide to act now? Surely the annexation of Crimea in 2014 offered just as good an opportunity? More importantly, if this invasion is all part of a plan to reinforce US hegemony, why would Congress think about cutting funds now? What has been achieved from a US perspective? True, NATO appears to have acquired more resolve as illustrated in the Sachs' link which you posted and added a couple of new members (Finland and Sweden), but that can hardly be called success. Indeed, Russia is still standing and if it is victorious in this war will, arguably, be stronger politically with the US shown to be weaker. Surely, if your theory is correct, the US will want to avoid this outcome at all costs and would continue funding Ukraine? I believe that the truth is somewhat more mundane: Putin is an unreconstructed KGB man who yearns for the return of a Russian dominated Central and Eastern Europe. This is nicely outlined in a previously posted link by Kwonitoy (reposted here for ease of reference). Yes, of course it is a bias source but imo the gist of the story rings true. https://war.ukraine.ua/why-is-russia-invading-ukraine/ In answer to your other questions: No I have not being living under a rock or a bridge. My question to you: Do you have any more online meetings planned with your fellow conspiracy theorists? If so, would it be possible for me to attend as an observer? I'd like to see first-hand how these things work, although I should warn you that I'll probably drop out when it starts to become really absurd.

And that is the problem. The UK visa requirements are morally repugnant. I doubt that if the UK were to relax its' visa requirements that the birth rate in the developing world would increase dramatically.

You're being absurd by suggesting that I'm trolling. The answer to each of your question is 'No' but that doesn't mean it is morally right. What level of discrimination against non-nationals do you consider acceptable?

Maybe they should be. As I said in a previous post I don't condone the discrimination which exists in Thailand but that means that we should ape it in the UK. For a supposedly enlightened country, it's becoming increasingly dark in the UK.

You seem to assume that anyone wishing to immigrate to the UK or, perish the thought, bring their partner and family with them is a ne'er do well who is on the make. Why would an increase in illegal mitigation have anything to do with legal mitigation?

Yep it's ridiculous that someone should consider it an entitlement to be able to live with their partner and kids.

You're right. My mistake. They are excluded. However, in my defence I interpreted your original post as a proposition which should apply universally.

Institutionally discriminating against a certain group in society. Doesn't history illustrate the dangers in doing that?

The promotion of discrimination is overwhelming.

When I lived in Belgium, apart from being ineligible to serve in the Belgian state institutions and stand/vote in national elections, I can't think of any additional rights denied to me which were granted to native-born Belgians. Imo I should have been allowed to vote but, other than that, I'd say that I was treated very equitably.

Absolute tosh. The number of spouses accompanying returning Brits is about 5% of the total number of annual migrants (+/-50k). The number of " ... freeloaders targeting hoping to get a visa by marrying a Brit loser" - as you so charmingly put it - is miniscule.

I agree that this is an attempt by the Tories to stop their support migrating (pun intended) to Reform but, if they are to have any chance of that happening, they will need to enact this proposal: Dropping it will make them look even more forlorn.